Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1786 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM JAN vs State S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1786 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM JAN VS State S. 9(c)--- Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5---Possession of Charas---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in sending the sample for analysis---Inconsequential---Prosecution case was that forty four packets of charas, total weighing 55893 grams, were recovered from the secret cavities of the truck driven by the accused---Defence objected that the sample parcels were dispatched to the Forensic Science Laboratory beyond 72 hours of its seizure and as such, Rule-4 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, had been blatantly violated, which, in turn, not only overshadowed its safe custody, but also impaired and vitiated the conclusions and reliability of the report of the Government Analyst, thus, rendering it incapable of sustaining conviction--- Validity--- Said objection had no force, as on one hand, the Muharrir while recording his statement had plausibly explained the delay to the effect that he received the sample parcels after the Investigating Officer arrived at the Police Station and that there were holidays on 21st, 22nd and 23rd of March, 2020, so he handed over the same to Police Constable, on 24.03.2020, whereas, on the other, the said Rule was directory in nature and not mandatory and any lapse in compliance thereof did not automatically discard the whole prosecution case, particularly when safe custody was otherwise proved as in the instant case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved the charges against the accused---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1786 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM JAN VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account duly supported by witnesses---Prosecution case was that forty four packets of charas, total weighing 55893 grams, were recovered from the secret cavities of the truck driven by the accused---Record showed that the complainant narrated the same story as mentioned in the FIR---Said witness was cross-examined by the defence, but nothing detrimental to the prosecution case could be extracted from his mouth---Witness was examined regarding his arrival on the spot, the manner in which the vehicle was signaled to stop and the mode of recovery from the vehicle---In order to know as to whether the complainant was telling the whole truth and as to whether the incident occurred in the mode, manner and the stated time, statement of recovery witness was also recorded---Said witness was cross-examined on material aspects of the case, but he remained consistent to what the complainant stated---Manner in which the complainant left the Police Station was fully supported by the marginal witness and even the manner in which the recoveries were effected from the vehicle---Investigating Officer stated that on receiving copy of the FIR, he visited the spot---On reaching the spot, he was handed over sealed sample parcel by the complainant for the purpose of chemical analysis and parcel containing the remaining charas recovered from the accused---Investigating Officer took into possession the same along with the truck vide recovery memo duly attested by marginal witnesses---Said witness prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses were recorded---Investigating Officer was cross-examined on material aspects of the case, but nothing detrimental could be brought on record to shatter the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved the charges against accused---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1786 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM JAN VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Samples---Safe custody of samples and their transmission to the Chemical Examiner established---Prosecution case was that forty four packets of charas, total weighing 55893 grams, were recovered from the secret cavities of the truck driven by the accused---Muharrir of the Police Station stated that he was handed over by the Investigating Officer sample parcels and parcel of remaining charas along with application for transmitting the parcels to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis which he kept in safe custody of the Malkhana---Said witness stated that he handed over the sample parcels, 44 in number, along with application and route certificate to Police Constable for taking the same to the laboratory which he did and on return, he was handed over by him a receipt/route certificate---Similarly, a Police Constable was examined, who stated that Muharrir of the Police Station handed him over 44 sample parcels along with route certificate; he took the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory, where he handed it over to the officer concerned and brought the receipts back to the Police Station, which he handed over to the Muharrir---Both the said witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but they remained in harmony with each other as far as the date, time and mode and manner of transmission and handing over of the parcels were concerned and nothing detrimental could be brought out from their mouth---It was for the prosecution to prove on record the safe custody of the recovered substances, right from its recovery till its sending to the Police Station---In the present case it was established on record and that both the said witnesses were examined for that particular purpose, but no inconsistency could be found within their statements---Not only the prosecution succeeded in proving the safe custody of the contraband in the Police Station, but also the witness, who took the test samples to the office of the Chemical Examiner, explained the minute details of his departure to the office of the Chemical Examiner---Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved the charges against accused---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1786 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM JAN VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic---Appreciation of evidence---Driver of vehicle carrying narcotics---Conscious knowledge and possession of the recovered substance---Scope---Prosecution case was that forty four packets of charas, total weighing 55893 grams, were recovered from the secret cavities of the truck driven by the accused---Record showed that at the time of arrest, it was the accused who was driving the vehicle and that no other person was present therein, so no ambiguity was left to hold that the accused was in full control of the vehicle and that he had the conscious knowledge and possession of the recovered substance, more particularly, when the same was recovered from its secret cavities---Right from the first day till conclusion of the trial, no one appeared to claim ownership of the vehicle, which aspect further confirmed that the vehicle was possessed at the crucial time by no other person, but the accused and it was he who was attempting to transport the contraband after concealing the same in its secret cavities---Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved the charges against accused---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1786 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM JAN VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic---Appreciation of evidence--- Minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses---Inconsequential---Prosecution case was that forty four packets of charas, total weighing 55893 grams, were recovered from the secret cavities of the truck driven by the accused---Defence referred to some minor discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, but they were not of such a nature, which could be pressed into service to dislodge the trustworthy eye-witness account of the witnesses on one hand and the inherent worth of the collected material, on the other---Defense could not bring on record as to what mala fide either the complainant or the Investigating Officer or even any other Police Official had against the accused to charge him for commission of the offence and to plant such a huge quantity of narcotics against him---Moreso, it could not be ignored that the recovery was effected way back in the year 2020, whereas, the witnesses faced the test of cross-examination after an extensive length of time in the year 2021, so minor contradictions with regard to the timings as to when the information was received, when the Investigating Officer reached to the spot and when they left the same were bound to occur, as the Police Officials were and are conducting similar proceedings on day to day basis and it would be unnatural to expect them to answer with exactitude the timings, without any difference of even minutes---Minor contradictions with regard to timings suggested that the Police Officials had no animosity with the accused or interest in his prosecution with mala fide, since had it been so, the minor contradictions of timings would not have happened, rather the witnesses would have enabled themselves to reply with exactitude as experienced in some other criminal cases---Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved the charges against accused---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1786 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM JAN vs State S — 2023 YLR 1786 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR